Author Topic: Increasing secularisation - going full circle  (Read 1380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2038
  • Darwins +210/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #87 on: January 25, 2015, 10:30:24 AM »
I said explicitly that if you feel the need to correct my science then you are missing the point.
We tend to feel quite strongly that if you are using science to make your point, the science needs to be correct or your point is speculative, at best.

Quote
Yet Most of the objections were about how I don’t get science.
Actually, a lot of the objections about you and science are that you are using terms that have explicit definitions incorrectly, making assumptions about things you admit you don't understand, and resisting all efforts to clarify your errors related to science. To support that, I submit your own words:

Quote
Granted I simply and am maybe a bit loose with some definitions and descriptions – I DID claim poetic license –
Poetic license and science do no belong in the same discussion without very clear and explicit distinctions between "science" and "poetic license". I would actually advise against this approach - it hasn't worked very well so far, as you are making clear with this post.

Quote
but the point is rather:

* Even science has to rely on logic and reason to build frameworks and theories. It is therefore a part of the truth seeking process.
* But when you insist that I give ‘evidence’ of the natural kind then I must simply point out that it is what science is for.

Ah yes, the ever-present problem with evidence and theism.

Lacking evidence (as in evidence, not testimonial, not apologetics, not feelings, not opinions, evidence) you have very few tools at your disposal (identified parenthetically in the preceding clause) , and none of them are likely to convince a non-theist of anything.

It's been pointed out to you that you presuppose the existence of a god in your defense of your beliefs. Are you familiar with The Outsider Test for Faith? Briefly[1], it's presented like so:
 Since the presumption of faith we start out with is something we accept by "accidents of history" (i.e., where and when we are born), how likely is it that a believer will ever truly evaluate his or her faith? How is it possible to rationally evaluate the believers faith when they can only do so from within the presuppositions of that faith in the first place--presuppositions which he or she basically accepted by the "accidents of history." If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would almost certainly be a Muslim - and trying to deny that is ridiculous.

Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating - look at your own christian faith with the same critical thinking you would bring to bear on examining Islam, or Buddhism, or Mormonism, or any other faith tradition not your own. If your faith stands up under critical, thoughtful evaluation, then you can have your faith. If not, abandon it, for any God who requires you to believe correctly when humans have an extremely strong tendency to believe what we were born into, surely should make the correct faith pass the outsider test. If your faith cannot do this, then the God of your faith is not worthy of being worshipped.
******
In the 1980's , Ronald Reagan told the world that Americans are God's Favorite. I think that's pretty funny, considering God couldn't get across the Atlantic Ocean without hitching a ride with the incoming Europeans.
 1. I did a little editing and trimming for clarity
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 11:43:08 AM by Jag »
“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2158
  • Darwins +272/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #88 on: January 25, 2015, 11:12:16 AM »
@JeffPT
Quote
dennis, have you still not figured out yet that you are completely unable to differentiate the supernatural realm from a realm which does not exist?  This is your biggest problem.
By postulating not-real and supernatural as somehow equivalent, you are sneaking in an assumption into the logic.
True or false...

The supernatural world, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to the non-existent in all meaningful, provable, reasonable ways. 

True.

I'm not trying to be sneaky about it.  There is no supernatural world.  Its not real.  That's my position. 
The super-natural exists, whereas the realm that does not exist does not exist.

I think the second half of that sentence is self-evident.
If the qualities of both realms are the same, they are functionally equivalent.   

The supernatural would much better be contrasted (or equated from your perspective) as being similar to random or inexplicable natural event. Or events that break the laws of nature.
Unexplained natural events are nothing more than events that await explanation.  The past 200 years of human history has shown us that the things that were once thought unexplainable are not unexplainable, but just currently unexplained.

Like for instance a man being born from a Virgin. That is a real thing. That man existed. That is a Supernatural thing. I know you will object, so don’t bother. It is merely an illustration of WHAT super natural looks like. I don’t have DNA or scientific evidence of that particular person, so I can’t use that to prove that super-natural things exist, but MERELY that it is an example of something supernatural.
Supernatural CLAIMS look like that dennis.  NOT the actual supernatural.  If it didn't happen, then the supernatural, again, doesn't look like that.  It doesn't look like anything.  In other words it looks like nothing.  It looks non-existent. 

I'll grant you that the virgin birth is a supernatural CLAIM.  My argument is that those claims are FALSE because the supernatural is not a real thing.  We are trying to differentiate between supernatural THINGS and non-existent THINGS.  Or in the case of the virgin birth, we are trying to differentiate between supernatural EVENTS and EVENTS that don't actually happen.   

Let's go another route with this and try to think about something we probably both agree does not exist, but the claims of which, DO exist.  Magic. 

Magic does not exist.  People can not do actual magic.  I'm talking about Harry Potter type magic.  Do you agree with this?

Lets say a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat.  Is that a 'magic' act?  Was there no rabbit to begin with and the magician conjured one out of thin air?  Probably not, right? I mean, I guess it's possible that all the laws of nature were broken by one guy, a few words, and a stick, but the likelihood is so remote that it would be ridiculous to think he actually did. Conjuring a rabbit out of thin air, without any sort of trickery, would be something I would see as magic.  That is what magic would look like. 

So let's say a magician claims he can literally pull a rabbit out of thin air with no tricks.  Would you believe him?  What if he wrote a book, and inside that book he claimed he did it?  Would you believe him then?  I would think your answer is no.  Mine is, for sure. But yet, that is a magic CLAIM.  He is CLAIMING he can do magic.  I do not believe he can do magic.  This is exactly the same sort of thing I think when I hear that there was a virgin birth.  The book CLAIMS there was a virgin birth, but there WAS no virgin birth. 

Believing that the virgin birth actually happened as a supernatural event, is the exact same thing as believing the magician actually pulled a rabbit out of his hat, simply because you read it in a book.  WTF?  I mean seriously... WTF? 

Now one can add to this a host of other miracles (walking on water, water becomes wine etc) and you see why I am saying that super natural is NOT the same as non-existent.
Again, these are CLAIMS. I do not, not for one second, believe that they actually happened.  Without evidence, there is no reason to actually think they happened.  It's ridiculous.  I mean seriously let's say a man, today, comes to your door and claims that he walked on water.  Would you believe him?  No?  Then why do you believe that a man did that 2000 years ago? Was reality different back then?  It's stupid.  It just didn't happen.  None of the supernatural CLAIMS are true.  They're just not.   

The raison d’etre for this site is this very question, right? Give us an example of something that can be verified TODAY with science – something like an amputated limb growing back. That would constitute acceptable proof by everyone’s admission.
Is that such a bad thing to ask?  If a magician said that he could pull a rabbit literally out of thin air, wouldn't you want to see it before you just blindly believed him? 

Everyone rejects historical records, eyewitness accounts – despite that people were willing to be killed for bearing witness about those things.
100% outright, full blown, rejection.  Yes.  The accounts are false.  It doesn't matter if they were willing to die for belief; that's been the case with hundreds of religions, up to and including the Aztec's who would literally KILL people as sacrifices to the gods.  I reject, without a single ounce of reservation, that the bible miracle stories are true.  I do this, based on many things, but most of all on simple logic.  What's more reasonable... that some people lied, they were mistaken, or that the actual laws of nature were broken for one person, 2000 years ago?  People lie all the time.  People are mistaken all the time.  The laws of nature are NEVER BROKEN.  It's not reasonable to think the miracle stories are true.  It's just not.  I really think you have to have some sort of mental problem to think they're more likely true than false.  That's the priming thing I talk about.  You have to be primed to accept things like that.  An un-primed mind wont do it.

Why can we not test’ God but all sitting around the table and light a Bunsen Burner and hold to an amputated limb and see it grow back?
Your answer is because God does not exist.
Exactly.  This explains why we can't test God, right?  It also explains why we can't see God, have no evidence for God, why amputees don't grow limbs back, why the laws of nature are never broken, etc, etc into infinity.  Everything points to there being no God, dennis.  It's really that simple. 

My answer is, given that I arrived at Gods existence by reasoning about (as well) is to ponder this question seriously.
NO, again, NO.  You didn't 'arrive' at God's existence.  You STARTED with 'God exists' and asked yourself if reality fit with that. YES, you can get to belief in God that way.  You can get to Allah that way.  You can get to Ra that way.  All because there is not a single falsifiable thing about the god or gods that people conjure up.  Nothing.  That is why the traits and characteristics of gods are so nebulous and unprovable.  The moment you say 'god does X', it becomes testable, and it fails miserably. 

To answer this question (here) one must have a sound Theology.
Every religion ever invented by man has had a sound theology to the adherents of the religion.

DO YOU ACCEPT THESE AXIOMS:

Spirituality is actually essential for understanding the human mind...

Whatever you think consciousness is (physically), the difference between that and consciousness is a subjective experience...

However much you know about physics, chemistry, and biology, you 'live' elsewhere. As a matter of your experience, you are not a body of atoms, molecules, and cells...
1. No.  Spirituality is not essential at all for understanding the human mind.  There is no such thing as a spirit.
2. I'm not quite sure what you mean here.  I think of a brain like a computer.  A computer just uses a series of 1's and 0's but the output is as incredible as an IMAX 3D movie. 
3. No.  I disagree.  I am a function of physics, chemistry and biology.  If you don't think that's true, then just look at brain injured people.  Your brain IS you.  You don't live elsewhere.  If you have brain damage, it damages who you are. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2038
  • Darwins +210/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #89 on: January 25, 2015, 12:21:24 PM »
@JeffPT
Quote
dennis, have you still not figured out yet that you are completely unable to differentiate the supernatural realm from a realm which does not exist?  This is your biggest problem.
By postulating not-real and supernatural as somehow equivalent, you are sneaking in an assumption into the logic.

Followed by this:

The super-natural exists,

YOU are sneaking in a HUGELY SIGNIFICANT AND UTTERLY UNSUBSTANTIATED[1] assumption into the logic[/u].

Do you see it dennis? I'm being very serious in asking this question. You've largely ignored most of the posts I've contributed to various threads that you are participating in, this is a question I'm going to have to insist that you respond directly and explicitly to, and in your own words. <----- This part is the point - directly, explicitly, in your own words; with the additional qualifier that it not be a freaking manifesto, just a direct explicit answer to a direct explicit question.

Do you see the assumption you are inserting into the logic?

 1. because I'm almost certain that "unsubstantiatable" is not an actual word, but your assumption CAN NOT be substantiated, no matter the correct articulation, and therefore can not be included in the logic, by definition
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 12:23:26 PM by Jag »
“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3662
  • Darwins +128/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #90 on: January 25, 2015, 01:12:35 PM »
Ahh the good ol fashioned supernatural is really real argument.
So much of religion is predicated on this assumption.


It's pretty simple actually. 
If the natural is defined as everything that exists, and the 'supernatural' is defined as not natural then the supernatural does not exist.  By proving something thought of as supernatural to exist it becomes defined as 'natural', whether currently explainable or not.

Outside of thought experiments, there really does not seem to be a way around that.


The problem for theists is that this does a number on the god of gaps argument.

Above in this thread somebody attempted to use virgin birth as a proof of supernatural.  Sorry, no virgin birth is not supernatural.  There are creatures on Earth that do this via parthenogenesis.  If it were a stipulation for divinity then there are lots of insects, lizards, sharks and Turkeys that you'd better start worshiping.  If Jesus *were* born of a virgin then it would rightly be Jessica.  But... I'm digressing.

There is no way to show that something supernatural exists.  It can't be done since no matter how bizarre or difficult to explain it is... once it's shown to exist it is no longer supernatural, merely difficult to explain.  The problem with religion of course is that it wants to have things both ways.  It wants to have this mysterious magical magic force that give them a literal Deus Ex Machina argument, but of course they also want it to be 'real'.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5449
  • Darwins +623/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #91 on: January 25, 2015, 02:13:21 PM »
I've never understood why so many people have this idea that the 'supernatural' is forever inexplicable and somehow separated from the natural world.

Offline dennis

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Darwins +30/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Challenger
    • My Intro
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #92 on: January 25, 2015, 03:57:43 PM »
@JeffPT
Quote
dennis, have you still not figured out yet that you are completely unable to differentiate the supernatural realm from a realm which does not exist?  This is your biggest problem.
By postulating not-real and supernatural as somehow equivalent, you are sneaking in an assumption into the logic.

Followed by this:

The super-natural exists,

YOU are sneaking in a HUGELY SIGNIFICANT AND UTTERLY UNSUBSTANTIATED[1] assumption into the logic[/u].

Do you see it dennis? I'm being very serious in asking this question. You've largely ignored most of the posts I've contributed to various threads that you are participating in, this is a question I'm going to have to insist that you respond directly and explicitly to, and in your own words. <----- This part is the point - directly, explicitly, in your own words; with the additional qualifier that it not be a freaking manifesto, just a direct explicit answer to a direct explicit question.

Do you see the assumption you are inserting into the logic?
 1. because I'm almost certain that "unsubstantiatable" is not an actual word, but your assumption CAN NOT be substantiated, no matter the correct articulation, and therefore can not be included in the logic, by definition

No.

AND.

I am sorry if I did not answer something you wrote. Sometimes people make similar statements/observations and I pick one to answer. (If it is an objection I can feel I can respond to.)

Anyway.

Logic works like this:

1. Claim: All cats are black.
2. Argument: I have a cat.
3. Conclusion: My cat is black

When I say Supernatural exists, I am making a claim - as pointed out by others.
A claim is by its nature an assumption if you look at it by itself. But it is part of a logical argument.

It would be like saying I am trying to sneak in an assumption if I make ANY statement - say: 'The world is flat.'

The claim may be proven right or wrong, but it is not assumption.


For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked. (Rev 3:17)

Offline dennis

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Darwins +30/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Challenger
    • My Intro
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #93 on: January 25, 2015, 03:59:17 PM »
Ahh the good ol fashioned supernatural is really real argument.
So much of religion is predicated on this assumption.


It's pretty simple actually. 
If the natural is defined as everything that exists, and the 'supernatural' is defined as not natural then the supernatural does not exist.  By proving something thought of as supernatural to exist it becomes defined as 'natural', whether currently explainable or not.

Outside of thought experiments, there really does not seem to be a way around that.


The problem for theists is that this does a number on the god of gaps argument.

Above in this thread somebody attempted to use virgin birth as a proof of supernatural.  Sorry, no virgin birth is not supernatural.  There are creatures on Earth that do this via parthenogenesis.  If it were a stipulation for divinity then there are lots of insects, lizards, sharks and Turkeys that you'd better start worshiping.  If Jesus *were* born of a virgin then it would rightly be Jessica.  But... I'm digressing.

There is no way to show that something supernatural exists.  It can't be done since no matter how bizarre or difficult to explain it is... once it's shown to exist it is no longer supernatural, merely difficult to explain.  The problem with religion of course is that it wants to have things both ways.  It wants to have this mysterious magical magic force that give them a literal Deus Ex Machina argument, but of course they also want it to be 'real'.

That is not how ewe define 'natural'.
For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked. (Rev 3:17)

Offline dennis

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Darwins +30/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Challenger
    • My Intro
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #94 on: January 25, 2015, 04:07:49 PM »
Speaking as a geologist, the way we do experiments in geology is to:

1. Form a hypothesis.
2. Figure out how reality would look if the hypothesis was false, compared to if it was true.
3. Make observations to check whether reality looks like the hypothesis is true or false.

Hey, look at that!  It operates in the same way that every other field of science operates!  The difference is mainly in where the checking takes place.  Geology tends to do more observation outside of laboratories.  But we still need to bring rocks into the lab to examine them and gain the information we need.

HOW do you know that this process produces the truth?
For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked. (Rev 3:17)

Online eh!

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +129/-49
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #95 on: January 25, 2015, 04:15:39 PM »
^ evidence determines the truth or falsehood of the hypothesis.

the hypothesis can be right or wrong / true or false when compared to observations in reality.

your supernatural reality can never be proved right or wrong, you can't even tell us where it is, what happens there or what to look out for.

it is all inside your head.

I am sure you will find some people to share your personal delusion with, there are always feeble minds for your kind to prey on. it doesn't appear you will find many here tho.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 04:19:49 PM by eh! »
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5449
  • Darwins +623/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #96 on: January 25, 2015, 04:54:11 PM »
That is not how ewe define 'natural'.
Then how would you define it?  Because it seems like a perfectly acceptable definition to me.  And the dictionary definition is, "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind", which supports the definition that you're trying to dismiss as "not how we define natural".

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5449
  • Darwins +623/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #97 on: January 25, 2015, 05:06:20 PM »
When I say Supernatural exists, I am making a claim - as pointed out by others.

A claim is by its nature an assumption if you look at it by itself. But it is part of a logical argument.
More specifically, it is the premise of the logical argument.  Premises are by definition assumptions; they do not stop being assumptions simply because they're part of a logical argument.

Quote from: dennis
It would be like saying I am trying to sneak in an assumption if I make ANY statement - say: 'The world is flat.'

The claim may be proven right or wrong, but it is not assumption.
Yes, it most certainly is an assumption.  That's why we don't base conclusions solely on logic - because the premise might not actually be true.  For example, your claim that the supernatural exists is your premise.  But you do not get a free pass on that claim simply because it's necessary for your argument to stand up.  Your premise might be false - the supernatural might not exist, in which case your argument falls apart like a house of cards, because it cannot stand unless your premise is true.

I don't know about you, but I'd like to have something more solid to base an argument on than that a particular premise must be true for the argument to be true.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7174
  • Darwins +972/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #98 on: January 25, 2015, 05:14:06 PM »
Let's assume, along with dennis, that the supernatural exists. If there is a supernatural realm separate from our reality, with gods, souls and spirits etc inhabiting it, there should be no way the natural world could damage or hurt it. The supernatural is like, super, meaning more powerful than the natural, amiright?

But, as has been suggested above, a hard blow to the head, or a disease like cerebral malaria, can change someone from a nice ordinary law-abiding person to a raving sex maniac "sinning" right and left without a care. Altering the chemicals in the brain with drugs can make someone suicidally depressed, irritable and angry,  or euphorically happy and joyful. In another thread we are discussing the possibility of changing a person's gender identity and even sexual orientation by messing with their brain chemistry. Imagine if you could make a straight person "go gay" by giving them a pill-- now they are attracted to the same sex, and their soul is going to hell due to a hormonal switch. Nice.

Why would the supernatural  "soul's" personality be dependent on simple physical factors like chemistry?

Apparently changing someone's brain (a natural object) also causes their supernatural "soul" or "spirit" to change. If the soul is a non-material spirit, how could anything physical affect it?

By the same token, there are many accounts of people who, after suffering a disease, brain damage or dementia, become more religious. There are non-religious folks who start believing in god after something happens to their physical brain.[1] Apparently, physical things can change a person's soul to be more in tune with the supernatural, somehow. Why would that be?
 1. Of course, the god the person starts believing in is always one that is popular where the person lives. Hindus with no exposure to Christianity don't wake up from a coma believing in Jesus instead of Brahma. Muslims don't start thinking that Yemaya is real. Christians don't suddenly feel the holy presence of Ahura Mazda. The supernatural still has a hard time crossing cultural and geographical boundaries.....
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline dennis

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Darwins +30/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Challenger
    • My Intro
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #99 on: January 25, 2015, 05:15:07 PM »
That is not how ewe define 'natural'.
Then how would you define it?  Because it seems like a perfectly acceptable definition to me.  And the dictionary definition is, "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind", which supports the definition that you're trying to dismiss as "not how we define natural".

The dictionary definition is fine.
It does not presuppose.

All things in nature exists, but all things that exist aren't (only) in nature.
For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked. (Rev 3:17)

Online eh!

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +129/-49
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #100 on: January 25, 2015, 05:16:59 PM »
"I don't know about you, but I'd like to have something more solid to base an argument on than that a particular premise must be true for the argument to be true."

I don't think that is what he means, evident from his many posts where he tries to set up his position thu qualifiers eg refer to his debate with PP. he constantly tried to get PP to agree to assume he correct and see if the logic of his argument was sound.

he makes this very clear, he wants the logic of his argument to be agreed to not the premises of the argument.

if you agree to his argument and allow for his premises he then attempts to pull a sleight of hand and back-chain that given you have conceded his logic is correct then that must by also mean you are conceding his argument is correct and hence his premises by default were sound all along.

it's just tactics and sleight of hand, he does not understand the difference between a sound argument and a valid one, can someone who could be bothered explain it to him. or maybe he does know the difference between a sound and a valid argument but he is hoping we don't. that's why I consider dennis dishonest.
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Online eh!

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +129/-49
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #101 on: January 25, 2015, 05:19:39 PM »

All things in nature exists, but all things that exist aren't (only) in nature.



can you start giving examples, you never do, you just make assertions as if the fact that you make them makes them true.
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5449
  • Darwins +623/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #102 on: January 25, 2015, 05:43:59 PM »
The dictionary definition is fine.
It does not presuppose.
Unlike your presupposition that there are things outside of nature.  You see, the dictionary definition does not actually exclude humans from being natural; it simply makes a distinction between things produced by humans or human action, and things not produced by humans or human action.  And that's fair, as long as we don't forget that humans are part of nature as well.

Quote from: dennis
All things in nature exists, but all things that exist aren't (only) in nature.
Okay.  Name one thing that has been shown to exist outside of nature.  Please note that you must include evidence of this thing; if you do not include evidence, there will be no reason to conclude that it actually exists.

Online eh!

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +129/-49
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #103 on: January 25, 2015, 05:59:10 PM »

Quote from: dennis
All things in nature exists, but all things that exist aren't (only) in nature.


Okay.  Name one thing that has been shown to exist outside of nature.  Please note that you must include evidence of this thing; if you do not include evidence, there will be no reason to conclude that it actually exists.


cue dennis; it is your faulty "scientism" definition of evidence that is "incorrect" you will never be able to provide evidence of the supernatural using natural means, it's illogical.

yadayadayada
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2158
  • Darwins +272/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #104 on: January 25, 2015, 06:50:39 PM »
All things in nature exists, but all things that exist aren't (only) in nature.
Now who's sneaking in assumptions? 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Online eh!

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +129/-49
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #105 on: January 25, 2015, 06:52:20 PM »
All things in nature exists, but all things that exist aren't (only) in nature.
Now who's sneaking in assumptions? 


how many guesses do we get?
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7174
  • Darwins +972/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #106 on: January 25, 2015, 06:56:58 PM »
I feel like we are watching Frank Gorshin as the Riddler: Riddle me this, Batman. What exists that is not in nature, and how can we tell it exists?

I know, talk about going full circle. If only a theist could give us a straight answer to this, we could wrap this puppy right up. But no. Round and round we go, with folks like dennis redefining words and making up logical arguments based on what they wished was true, because they don't have any facts. If they had facts they could present them and we would all be able to believe in whatever gods were shown to exist.

Sigh.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online eh!

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +129/-49
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #107 on: January 25, 2015, 07:02:21 PM »
what I don't get is theists could decisively win and end every debate, they only need say " I believe because I believe" enuff said. those that do I respect their beliefs and honesty.

it seems guys like dennis who clutch at invisible straws are not convinced of their own position and use people like us to act as an echo-chamber to prop up their lack of belief.

it's like they are closet atheists and don't know or can't dare face it.....it's a self hating atheist denial that seems to drive them.

jmo.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 07:04:03 PM by eh! »
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12740
  • Darwins +319/-34
  • Gender: Male
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #108 on: January 25, 2015, 08:05:55 PM »
Speaking as a geologist, the way we do experiments in geology is to:

1. Form a hypothesis.
2. Figure out how reality would look if the hypothesis was false, compared to if it was true.
3. Make observations to check whether reality looks like the hypothesis is true or false.

Hey, look at that!  It operates in the same way that every other field of science operates!  The difference is mainly in where the checking takes place.  Geology tends to do more observation outside of laboratories.  But we still need to bring rocks into the lab to examine them and gain the information we need.

HOW do you know that this process produces the truth?

Because the information allows us to make accurate predictions about what other information we will discover in nature.

For example, it allows us to predict where we should mine the next copper deposit.  If it didn't give accurate information, then mining companies would spend their money elsewhere, rather than on geoscience.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2038
  • Darwins +210/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #109 on: January 25, 2015, 09:29:01 PM »
@JeffPT
Quote
dennis, have you still not figured out yet that you are completely unable to differentiate the supernatural realm from a realm which does not exist?  This is your biggest problem.
By postulating not-real and supernatural as somehow equivalent, you are sneaking in an assumption into the logic.

Followed by this:

The super-natural exists,

YOU are sneaking in a HUGELY SIGNIFICANT AND UTTERLY UNSUBSTANTIATED[1] assumption into the logic[/u].

Do you see it dennis? I'm being very serious in asking this question. You've largely ignored most of the posts I've contributed to various threads that you are participating in, this is a question I'm going to have to insist that you respond directly and explicitly to, and in your own words. <----- This part is the point - directly, explicitly, in your own words; with the additional qualifier that it not be a freaking manifesto, just a direct explicit answer to a direct explicit question.

Do you see the assumption you are inserting into the logic?
 1. because I'm almost certain that "unsubstantiatable" is not an actual word, but your assumption CAN NOT be substantiated, no matter the correct articulation, and therefore can not be included in the logic, by definition

No.

AND.

I am sorry if I did not answer something you wrote. Sometimes people make similar statements/observations and I pick one to answer. (If it is an objection I can feel I can respond to.)

Anyway.

Logic works like this:

1. Claim: All cats are black.
2. Argument: I have a cat.
3. Conclusion: My cat is black

When I say Supernatural exists, I am making a claim - as pointed out by others.
Correction - you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

Logic starts with a premise. In order for your argument to be dependable, your premise must be true. For instance, all cats are not black - your cat may be black, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the color of other cats. Your trying to apply logic backward dennis. You posted what amounts to a made up fortuitous coincidence, (assuming that you actually have a black cat) that began with a faulty premise that happened to align with your cat's color.

You are, with no basis other than a book, your emotional response to your personal history related to religion, and what other people have told you, presupposing the existence of a creator god, specifically a version of the christian god of the bible. You can not empirically demonstrate the existence of any such entity, therefor logic can not help your argument.
“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7174
  • Darwins +972/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #110 on: January 25, 2015, 10:31:16 PM »
Can I add once more that there would be no need for such verbal gymnastics that purport to invent a god, if such a being actually existed in reality, and wanted everyone to know about it? There would be no way not to know about it, if it was all powerful, benevolent and wanted "a personal relationship" with human beings. No way that a puny human's "sinful" behavior or "arrogant" attitude could block out this being. No way would this being allow any other lessor beings (demons, evil spirits, whatev) to interfere with his precious human children.[1]

And furthermore, if there was only one real god with all of those characteristics, there would only be one religion, because that being would not sit idly by and let billions of people of people waste their lives following fake gods and false religions.

Seriously, would a god who loved people let so many (like the ancient Aztec, the medieval Spanish Inquisition, or Christians in Africa today) worship fake deities that demanded human sacrifices of babies and children, allow-- even promote slavery, and order folks to torture and kill people who are different (albinos, handicapped, mentally ill), or who eat the wrong foods, or who have different gods, or who have sex the wrong way? This wonderful being left them on their own do that persecution and exploitation sh!t for thousands of years?  And to fix the mess, he inspires a book that only a small percentage of the human population will ever even read, let alone believe is true?

Please don't insult yourself by making the god you worship so lazy, uncaring, cruel and/or stupid. Just say he is a hands-off deist god who started the universe and went away, and have done with it. Cause the personal relationship god who watches every sparrow that falls and provides for the lilies of the fields? He so ain't doing any sh!t that anybody can notice.
 1. Would you let criminals assault, drug or brainwash your kids if you were all powerful? Please say hell no. Don't hum and haw and make us call CPS.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jdawg70

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2500
  • Darwins +462/-9
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #111 on: January 26, 2015, 09:39:38 AM »
Quote
Quote
In a sense, the entire science of Physics ultimately rests on the Quantum Vacuum – from whence sprung all matter and all laws.
Holy shit that's wrong.

Help then. I understood that the current front-runner for what was (before) the big bang) was the Cosmological Model that proposes the QV.

See above.

Did not everything (space time and the laws that govern it originate from the QV? I thought that is Krauss’ theory for te creation event?

Well the whole of physics doesn't rest on a singular theory of any kind.  Yes, theories are very interrelated, and if, say the Big Bang were to be shown to be incorrect, I imagine there would be a lot of reworking of current understood theories to take into account whatever evidence or understanding there is that showed the Big Bang to be incorrect, but it's pretty wrong to state that the entire science of physics rests on it.  The entire science of physics, if it rests on something, rests on the understanding that there is a physical world to study.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2038
  • Darwins +210/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #112 on: January 26, 2015, 09:56:59 PM »
dennis, we never even started talking about this:

Are you familiar with The Outsider Test for Faith? Briefly[1], it's presented like so:
 Since the presumption of faith we start out with is something we accept by "accidents of history" (i.e., where and when we are born), how likely is it that a believer will ever truly evaluate his or her faith? How is it possible to rationally evaluate the believers faith when they can only do so from within the presuppositions of that faith in the first place--presuppositions which he or she basically accepted by the "accidents of history." If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would almost certainly be a Muslim - and trying to deny that is ridiculous.

Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating - look at your own christian faith with the same critical thinking you would bring to bear on examining Islam, or Buddhism, or Mormonism, or any other faith tradition not your own. If your faith stands up under critical, thoughtful evaluation, then you can have your faith. If not, abandon it, for any God who requires you to believe correctly when humans have an extremely strong tendency to believe what we were born into, surely should make the correct faith pass the outsider test. If your faith cannot do this, then the God of your faith is not worthy of being worshipped.
******
In the 1980's , Ronald Reagan told the world that Americans are God's Favorite. I think that's pretty funny, considering God couldn't get across the Atlantic Ocean without hitching a ride with the incoming Europeans.
 1. I did a little editing and trimming for clarity

There's a lot of things in the original post that I'd like to discuss, but I'd prefer to hear what you think about this^^^ first.

Don't just read what I wrote, please follow the links as well.
“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Offline dennis

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Darwins +30/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Challenger
    • My Intro
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #113 on: January 27, 2015, 04:42:37 AM »
^^
I am duty this weekend, so will have less time, but then I will have a day in lieu the following week, so over the next week or so I will try...

D
For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked. (Rev 3:17)

Online eh!

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +129/-49
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #114 on: January 27, 2015, 05:35:16 AM »
please don't rush an answer.

I would rather wait a while longer and get some substance.

you have been spinning your wheels for some time now.


some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2038
  • Darwins +210/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Reply #115 on: Yesterday at 09:24:38 AM »
^^
I am duty this weekend, so will have less time, but then I will have a day in lieu the following week, so over the next week or so I will try...

D

I'll watch for a reply from you. Please realize as well that if we are going to continue this discussion, we will also be returning to Reply #109.
“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter